Jump to content

Skill Gaming Policy Thread


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1254 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

I think this demonstrates how disinterested LL is about applications - probably hoping there won't be any. From the 
page:-

 

When I become an approved creator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

When I become an approved operator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

 

Read the second question carefully
:)

Not sure what you are asking for us to look for unless you didn't read the question carefully and think it is saying the operator is adding games they created to the "list" They are talking about the LIST that they created not that they created games.

You're the one who see problems in written stuff where there are none, so I'm surprised that you read the 2nd question the way you did. I agree that it can be meant that way. It can be understood both ways, so, in this case, it really is unclear.

Having said that, someone posted that operators do need to pay again each time they want to add a game to those they have been licensed to operate, and I believe that that info was got from LL's pages. If it was, then the 2nd question is as wrong as I thought it was, because the answer given is that it won't be necessary to pay again.

LL does need to either clarify or correct in this cse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So in effort to destroy the small business person they are charging a fee to reregister $100USD and will then charge on a monthly/quarterly basis extra fees.

 

In one stroke killing off any small business who can’t afford these charges.. And any small upstart before they make any profit.

 

Rules make sense if you can’t have gambling where you live you can't have a gambling business but $100USD just to say yes your correct you can have skill gaming now pay us regularly regardless of you making anything.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop regurgitating the same lines. Actually answer some questions. Your response seems to indicate that any game that is capable of taking money and giving L$ rewards is a violation without being in the proper region. Does this include games that have a "Play for Free, no Prize" mode, and that mode is the primary use?

Link to post
Share on other sites


LouXions wrote:

So in effort to destroy the small business person they are charging a fee to reregister $100USD and will then charge on a monthly/quarterly basis extra fees.

 

In one stroke killing off any small business who can’t afford these charges.. And any small upstart before they make any profit.

 

Rules make sense if you can’t have gambling where you live you can't have a gambling business but $100USD just to say yes your correct you can have skill gaming now pay us regularly regardless of you making anything.

 

Oh, boo hoo. *eye roll*

While I don't think for a second that LL will actively police these gaming regions for adherence, I'm sure they will get thier fair share of ARs with which to deal because of it.  Assuming that at least some of those ARs will require the advice of legal counsel, due to the specificity of those instances, it's only logical for a company to offset those expenses by charging the specific customers who participate in those types of venues a fee, over and above the tier which they must pay.

I'd much rather see them do this, than spread that cost across the entirety of their user base.  I certainly don't wish to pay extra to cover the legal costs of providing a service for which I do not (and, as of August 1st, cannot) participate.  Should you (meaning you or anyone else) wish to continue pursuing this line of opportunity, then you alone should be subject to taking on the fiscal responsibility of doing so.  If you find this financial burden unacceptable, then please, feel free to look elsewhere in order to sustain your virtual bank account.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

I think this demonstrates how disinterested LL is about applications - probably hoping there won't be any. From the 
page:-

 

When I become an approved creator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

When I become an approved operator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

 

Read the second question carefully
:)

Not sure what you are asking for us to look for unless you didn't read the question carefully and think it is saying the operator is adding games they created to the "list" They are talking about the LIST that they created not that they created games.

You're the one who see problems in written stuff where there are none, so I'm surprised that you read the 2nd question the way you did. I agree that it can be meant that way. It can be understood both ways, so, in this case, it really is unclear.

Having said that, someone posted that operators do need to pay again each time they want to add a game to those they have been licensed to operate, and I believe that that info was got from LL's pages. If it was, then the 2nd question is as wrong as I thought it was, because the answer given is that it won't be necessary to pay again.

LL does need to either clarify or correct in this cse.

I actually did read it wrong myself the first time, mostly because I was anticipating something to be wrong after the comment there was something wrong. But it makes sense on its own and in context as a whole. They require both operators and game creators to have a list of games which obviously they create. I agree it could be worded much much better but it is clear enough. There are much bigger errors they made in the various wikis policies etc they need to fix first.

Reading all these things in context is important though given whoever wrote all this did a horrible job of it and needs to fix it all asap.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I have no idea how your reply relates to what I posted, but, nevertheless...

 

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I think its a clear this is a case of LL trying to protect its buttocks on both sides and do the Pontius Pilate thing and wash their hands of it so if there are legal issues they can show they did their bit and point to people to talk to.

 I think this goes without saying.  What company in its right mind would want anything less?

 

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

In the past LL created for themselves a liability issue by getting too close to games. The entire game industry in the past was pretty much built around what LL will allow or not to the point some game creators have been known to AR their own games to see if LL would let it fly or not.

If this is you being critical of the way LL has regulated skill gaming in the past, then you should be delighted with the new policy.  If nothing else, it will provide creators (and operators) with definitive answers as to whether or not their creations (and games they use) are allowed.  Never again will anyone need to AR themselves for clarification.

...Dres

The new policy is a necessity I am sure and from LL's point of view its smart of them to do so. But really they should have done this long ago to protect their own "assets" if you will.  I am critical how they did it before from a purely LLs business point of view. This current policies are just poorly written, clearly it is being rushed, and not well thought out. Its a disaster now because of the obvious rushing when they had 7 years to do the clearly smart thing but didn't. Also I think this policy is possibly part of downsizing some of the policing and ARs they have to do as they shift resources to "Second Life 2.0". I prefer that LL didn't have to have to have any of these polcies outside of restricting such games from kids (which they didn't even do that in the last 7 years). I prefer we all lived in a (real) world where governing bodies didn't tell grown adults how to spend their entertainment dollars. A game of skill or chance is a big no no but gambling on the stock market ala day trading is fine. If all these cities, states, and countries truely have issues with games of chance they should just ban the stock market as well. It kind of hurt a whole lot of people win Wall Street spun up double zeroes a few years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I have no idea how your reply relates to what I posted, but, nevertheless...

 

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I think its a clear this is a case of LL trying to protect its buttocks on both sides and do the Pontius Pilate thing and wash their hands of it so if there are legal issues they can show they did their bit and point to people to talk to.

 I think this goes without saying.  What company in its right mind would want anything less?

 

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

In the past LL created for themselves a liability issue by getting too close to games. The entire game industry in the past was pretty much built around what LL will allow or not to the point some game creators have been known to AR their own games to see if LL would let it fly or not.

If this is you being critical of the way LL has regulated skill gaming in the past, then you should be delighted with the new policy.  If nothing else, it will provide creators (and operators) with definitive answers as to whether or not their creations (and games they use) are allowed.  Never again will anyone need to AR themselves for clarification.

...Dres

The new policy is a necessity I am sure and from LL's point of view its smart of them to do so. But really they should have done this long ago to protect their own "assets" if you will.  I am critical how they did it before from a purely LLs business point of view. This current policies are just poorly written, clearly it is being rushed, and not well thought out. Its a disaster now because of the obvious rushing when they had 7 years to do the clearly smart thing but didn't. Also I think this policy is possibly part of downsizing some of the policing and ARs they have to do as they shift resources to "Second Life 2.0". I prefer that LL didn't have to have to have any of these polcies outside of restricting such games from kids (which they didn't even do that in the last 7 years). I prefer we all lived in a (real) world where governing bodies didn't tell grown adults how to spend their entertainment dollars. A game of skill or chance is a big no no but gambling on the stock market ala day trading is fine. If all these cities, states, and countries truely have issues with games of chance they should just ban the stock market as well. It kind of hurt a whole lot of people win Wall Street spun up double zeroes a few years ago.

Are you effing kidding me?  The stock market?  Your argument here is well beyond the scope of what is being discussed.

The fact that LL didn't protect themselves any more than necessary in the past should go a long way in convincing you (as well as us all) that they won't do any more than that which is necessary to protect themselves from this point on.  I believe that you (and many others) have interpreted the policy on a very broad basis, and therefore have included things which should never have been included.  I also believe that you believe that LL will interpret them as broadly as you have, if not more so.  I simply disagree with that assertion.

You need only look at LL's past actions to conclude that their interpretation will be as narrow as legally possible.  As I stated before, it's in their best interest to approve as many games and operators as possible.  As such, I believe you shouldn't be as worried about this as much as you currently seem to be.

...Dres

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't interpreted anything broadly. I actually believe a few games pushed way too far past the line which for all we know is why there are problems now. The way games were handled in the past it ended up pushing out games that are more clearly skill based actually. If LL stuck to their original policies the skill game industry in SL would look very different today. People put out games that LL allowed and tested where the line was because it wasn't their original wager TOS.

Not sure why you think I am worried persay. The policies and such need to be written much clearer to clean up this mess and confusion. I can guess what they meant to say but people can't afford to guess. As written it can be interpeted as a video arcade style game where you simply pay to play is not allowed even if it is just for high score and for no prize of any kind.

On the Stock market it is within the scope as far as how LL in these recent posts does not understand the term "gamble". The old wager TOS was more clear even though it was not really enforced by LL. Heck based on how they handled games in the past it was all pure guess work.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I haven't interpreted anything broadly. I actually believe a few games pushed way too far past the line which for all we know is why there are problems now. The way games were handled in the past it ended up pushing out games that are more clearly skill based actually. If LL stuck to their original policies the skill game industry in SL would look very different today. People put out games that LL allowed and tested where the line was because it wasn't their original wager TOS.

You're right... they didn't and now they're cracking down.

 


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

Not sure why you think I am worried persay. The policies and such need to be written much clearer to clean up this mess and confusion. I can guess what they meant to say but people can't afford to guess. As written it can be interpeted as a video arcade style game where you simply pay to play is not allowed even if it is just for high score and for no prize of any kind.

On multiple occasions (during this thread), you've misinterpreted the policy.  The policy is completely clear, as where your interpretation is not... I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you.  You've even gone so far as to call into question the existence of a semi-colon in LL's policy as being the decisive factor of how it should be interpreted.  As such, how can anyone, besides completely ignorant morons take you at your word for what they've actually said.

I don't blame you one bit for being so disgruntled and/or so cynical, but you can do that and stick to the facts as well.  You don't need to make crap up in order to sell it.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I haven't interpreted anything broadly. I actually believe a few games pushed way too far past the line which for all we know is why there are problems now. The way games were handled in the past it ended up pushing out games that are more clearly skill based actually. If LL stuck to their original policies the skill game industry in SL would look very different today. People put out games that LL allowed and tested where the line was because it wasn't their original wager TOS.

You're right... they didn't and now they're cracking down.

 

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

Not sure why you think I am worried persay. The policies and such need to be written much clearer to clean up this mess and confusion. I can guess what they meant to say but people can't afford to guess. As written it can be interpeted as a video arcade style game where you simply pay to play is not allowed even if it is just for high score and for no prize of any kind.

On multiple occasions (during this thread), you've misinterpreted the policy.  The policy is completely clear, as where your interpretation is not... I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you.  You've even gone so far as to call into question the existence of a semi-colon in LL's policy as being the decisive factor of how it should be interpreted.  As such, how can anyone, besides completely ignorant morons take you at your word for what they've actually said.

I don't blame you one bit for being so disgruntled and/or so cynical, but you can do that and stick to the facts as well.  You don't need to make crap up in order to sell it.

...Dres

If by cracking down if you mean they are cleaning up the mess they were signficantly responsible for and profited off of your right. But it is pretty clear someone cracked down on Linden Labs.

I didn't misnterpreted anything. It was written by people that don't even know what the word gamble means. Additionally I never said that a semi colon is a decisive factor of how to interpet the policy. Either you are EXTREMELY confused or just trolling for fun. I said the exact opposite about semicolons how they are not words and they are not making things clear. The policy is NOT clear. It was written by someone that should not be doing writing such things. 62 pages of questions and comments clearly demonstrate that

If you have to make BS and crap your not helping anything. I am done talking to you. Clearly you have alterior motives other than the facts, policies or reality. So good luck with the trolling just to get your naked picture in the forums

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

If by cracking down if you mean they are cleaning up the mess they were signficantly responsible for and profited off of your right. But it is pretty clear someone cracked down on Linden Labs.

I didn't misnterpreted anything. It was written by people that don't even know what the word gamble means. Additionally I never said that a semi colon is a decisive factor of how to interpet the policy. Either you are EXTREMELY confused or just trolling for fun. I said the exact opposite about semicolons how they are not words and they are not making things clear. The policy is NOT clear. It was written by someone that should not be doing writing such things. 62 pages of questions and comments clearly demonstrate that

If you have to make BS and crap your not helping anything. I am done talking to you. Clearly you have alterior motives other than the facts, policies or reality. So good luck with the trolling just to get your naked picture in the forums

Do you ever read anything you write? If there's anyone that's trolling and having ulterior motives, it's you. Post after post after post you keep taking a whack at Linden's policies, writing abilities, and their competence at managing their products and continually attempt to create misleading gray areas that don't exist. Their policies are CLEAR and written in the appropriate legal format that they should be. As big of a company that Linden Labs is, any policies including their Terms of Service is very likely written and carefully reviewed by their legal team. Professionals who have heaps of experience and formal education dealing with legal documentation, more than you'll ever have in your lifetime. So when you say that it is not clear and that someone should not be writing such things, do you know how ridiculous you sound?

Also, keep in mind that Linden Labs is a company dealing in games for a considerable amount of time on a large scale, so I think they know and are well versed in the subject matter as much as you do (maybe even much more) or they wouldn't be in business. And as far as this thread is concerned, 62 pages of it doesn't mean the policy is flawed or poorly written. It's a discussion thread where anyone is suppose to be able to talk about it good or bad in a respectful sense. Did you think when a policy is good or well-written it would only have a 2 page discussion thread?

You may want to be a little less critical in your comments, as all of us in this thread are looking to gain knowledge on the subject matter at hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites


GreenKnight Kaul wrote:

Stop regurgitating the same lines.
Actually answer some questions
. Your response seems to indicate that any game that is capable of taking money and giving L$ rewards is a violation without being in the proper region. Does this include games that have a "Play for Free, no Prize" mode, and that mode is the primary use?

LL already answered your question in this thread, and it is also included in their documentation. You didn't need to go very far into the thread to find the answer you want. I suppose you couldn't be bothered, eh? If reading the early parts of the thread was too hard for you, the OP contains 4 links to 4 LL documents about it all. The page at the other end of one of those 4 links contains the answer to your question. If you could have been bothered to look, you would have found the answer quickly enough.

Games that can be set to pay-in and pay-out come under the new rules, regardless of whether or not they are are being used as free to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

I think this demonstrates how disinterested LL is about applications - probably hoping there won't be any. From the 
page:-

 

When I become an approved creator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

When I become an approved operator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

 

Read the second question carefully
:)

Not sure what you are asking for us to look for unless you didn't read the question carefully and think it is saying the operator is adding games they created to the "list" They are talking about the LIST that they created not that they created games.

You're the one who see problems in written stuff where there are none, so I'm surprised that you read the 2nd question the way you did. I agree that it can be meant that way. It can be understood both ways, so, in this case, it really is unclear.

Having said that, someone posted that operators do need to pay again each time they want to add a game to those they have been licensed to operate, and I believe that that info was got from LL's pages. If it was, then the 2nd question is as wrong as I thought it was, because the answer given is that it won't be necessary to pay again.

LL does need to either clarify or correct in this cse.

I actually did read it wrong myself the first time, mostly because I was anticipating something to be wrong after the comment there was something wrong. But it makes sense on its own and in context as a whole. They require both operators and game creators to have a list of games which obviously they create. I agree it could be worded much much better but it is clear enough. There are much bigger errors they made in the various wikis policies etc they need to fix first.

Reading all these things in context is important though given whoever wrote all this did a horrible job of it and needs to fix it all asap.

It actually reads perfectly clearly both ways. Me, you, and Perrie all read it one way until you pointed out that it can be read another way. Both ways are clear, and the second way is probably the one that is meant. But it doesn't stop there.

In an earlier post, Innula wrote in reply to the question, will an operator need to apply again when s/he wants to operate an additional game, "The answer to question 2, as far as I can see from page 7 of the application form, is that yes, you do need to submit a separate application each time you want to add a new game (though you can apply for approval for several games at once)."

The FAQ says that, for operators, it's a one-time fee. Innula found on page 7 of the application form that another application needs to be submitted for each additional game. Now, I can understand that the fee in not charged for each additional application, but I can't be certain about that because the discussion I was in with Innula criticised LL for charging the fee for each additional application. If what she saw said that it's one-time fee, she would have said so.

And that brings me back to that question in the FAQ. If Innula didn't see anything in the application to say that no fee is required for additional applications, does it mean that a fee is charged for each application and the FAQ really is a mistake, or not?

Certainly the lawyer will charge his/her fee over and over again with each additional application, so the operator is still getting shafted by LL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I didn't misnterpreted anything. It was written by people that don't even know what the word gamble means.
Additionally I never said that a semi colon is a decisive factor of how to interpet the policy
. Either you are EXTREMELY confused or just trolling for fun. I said the exact opposite about semicolons how they are not words and they are not making things clear. The policy is NOT clear. It was written by someone that should not be doing writing such things. 62 pages of questions and comments clearly demonstrate that

Much as I hate to side with Dresden, I have to this time. You stated that the semi-colon made it unclear. In fact, the semi-colon was the correct punctuation to use in that part of the policy, so it was perfectly clear. You didn't say that the semi-colon was decisive in how to interpret the policy, but you did wrongly say that it was decisive in making that part unclear.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"You own a gaming sim? Didn't you know that gambling hasn't been allowed in SL for years? But you did know, and you chose to break the rules."

You have no clue what your talking about there is a policy on wagering not gambling per say
. Games of chance have not been allowed in SL for years. Games of skill always have been allowed and is clearly stated right on the wagring policy.

Additionally LL has been very aware of games of skill such as all the slingo variants since 2007. Its impossible not to and they actively allowed them and even had a secret white list of games that were ok.  

"
Gambling is strictly
in Second
". Those are the very first words of the 
about the new policy. Notice that is says "gambling". I think I do have "
a clue what I'm talking about
"
;)

A secret white list? What's secret about it if you know it exists? But yes, I do know that skill games have been allowed since the gambling ban. It's just that when someone says they have a gaming sim, it's generally understood that gaming is gambling, as in 'online gaming'. Do a search in Google on the word 'gaming'. You'll see all the online casinos come up, using the phrase 'online gaming'.


I randomly found the quote you quoted. It is in the section entitled Skill Gaming Approved Participants.

you clearly had to dig to find that poorly written wiki. The skill gaming policy is almost as poorly written. The poster does not understand what the word gamble means. They clearly wrote it as if the word is only ever used in relations to games of pure chance. When they said gambling, they meant to say games of chance, otherwise the rest completely contradicts other new policies, the wagering policy, and itself.

But if you read it all in context which clearly you didn't want people to read or discover it says the following.

 

Gambling is strictly
in Second Life and operating, or participating in, a game of chance that provides a Linden Dollar payout is a violation of our
. However, games of skill are legally permitted in many jurisdictions, and Second Life’s
establishes that skill games offering Linden Dollar payouts will be allowed, but each game, its creator, its operator, and the region on which it is operated must be approved by Linden Lab. Additionally, access to skill games offering Linden Dollar payouts will be limited to Second Life users who are of sufficient age and are located in a jurisdiction that Linden Lab permits for this type of online gaming activity. For more information on this program, please read the
and associated
.

 

There is enough legit confusion without you spreading BS out there like a common place troll.

I haven't spread any BS. Everything I wrote is true, and you quoting the rest of the paragraph doesn't make it any less true. There is nothing in the paragraph that contradicts the very first statement.

You seem to have problems with the way things are written, and find difficulties where there are none. Earlier you said that the semi-colon made things unclear. I didn't know at that time, but I've since learned in this thread that the semi-colon was exactly the right punctuation to use to make it an AND seperated list, and it was
you
who didn't understand the semi-colon.

You quoted a partial sentence COMPLETELY out of context and further more it came from a skill game approval wiki on how operators that want to apply to have a skill game business w hich people can GAMBLE on. In my book quoting something blatantly out of context like that is EXACTLY the same as a lie.

Here is the contradiction

"Gambling is strictly
in Second Life"

"Second Life’s
establishes that skill games offering Linden Dollar payouts will be allowed"

They need to get someone else to write these things. Gambling is not something that is restricted to a game of chance.  When you buy stocks at the stock market you are gambling that it's value will grow. When you play a chess game with a friend and both agree the winner buys lunch, that is a gamble. There is nothing about the word gamble that implies it can only be used when referencing a game of chance. The writer needs to make an extra effort to be clear on these things. But the context which you intentionally omitted is clear they meant to say games of chance are strictly prohibited as stated in the wagering policy.

 

As for semi colons, they are not words and are only separators or have any meaning other than a pause.
The way it is written it is implying that if a game has any of those parameters listed that it needs to be approved
. Now take a look at the wagering policy where they actually use words to convey wha tthey are saying instead of punctuation.

It is a violation of this policy to wager in games in the Second Life® environment operated on Linden Lab servers if such games:
  1. Rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner,
    OR
  2. Rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events,

AND provide a payout in
  1. Linden Dollars (L$)
    OR
  2. Any real-world currency or thing of value.

 

Note the clear use of conjunctions. If need more information on conjunctions I recommend searching youtube for "conjunction junction what's your function"


You really do have your own way of reading things, don't you? Yes, the statement, "Gambling is strictly prohibited in Second Life" is the start of a sentance, as you said, but the rest of the sentence is coupled to it by the word "and". So it's a statement that is complete in itself. In other words, gambling is strictly prohibited in Second Life. It's entirely in context and It can't be said any plainer. You can beat about the bush as much as you like, but gambling is strictly prohibited in Second Life. There's a whole policy document about it.

What you seem to have a problem with here is LL telling you that gambling is strictly prohibited in Second Life while your own desires are different, so you choose to make your own interpretations of what LL says, and, if that doesn't work, you decide that LL doesn't know what the word 'gambling' means so the document can't mean what it actually says.

Incidentally, contrary to what you accused me of, I didn't dig anywhere to find that statement. The page was linked to from LL's original post in this thread, and the statement was the very first thing on that page. I didn't even need a trowel let alone a spade to find it.

 

ETA: You need to learn about semi-colons because your idea of them is leading you astray. Perrie linked to a very good article about them a few pages back in this thread. You should read it. LL's use of them in that part of the Policy document is fully explained, as did someone else in this thread. It's you who doesn't understand them, so you get and post the wrong idea, as you did yet again in your post that I've quoted here. I've highlighted where you got it wrong in red for you.

Do you see a trend here? You don't understand semi-colons but you think you do, so you declare that LL used them wrongly - in a way that makes the statement mean something different to what it actually means. You read an LL statement saying that gambling is not allowed, but you think you know better, so you say that whoever wrote the piece doesn't understand the word 'gambling'. I'm sure there are other things like that in this thread too. You seem to enjoy swimming against the tide of facts, presumably because you don't want the facts to be true because they affect your gaming operations in SL. You're swimming against too strong a current of truth, but you don't seem to want to accept it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My coding experience on computers is exactly zero (my biggest achievement is getting my pc to work again after a windows update corrupted my windows) lol.  

What you say is logical and from what I can gather, coding is about logic.   Every action has to have a pre-determined outcome.   If this.....then that?   I dont think you could programme any programme to say If this.......then let the player use his/her skill to determine the outcome.

By that very nature, a players skill in determining the outcome doesn't come into it.   Those that have played some machines for years can see from the beginning of a game how its going to end... e.g.   on a well known game if you "hit the spider before finding x2 and x3, you're basically gonna lose until enough people have lost or enough money has been fed to satisfy it, then it will pay out.   The secret to that particular game is to find it last..not first.   But that's common knowledge.   Another is, if a jackpot goes, keep playing because by hitting the right number...you get x100 on the next spin.   Aint rocket science, its how the codes work (or appear to on a regular basis).    Only a games creator can say nope, that aint how it works at all, you know nothing you muppet.   I only say that to highlight how some games if played enough appear predictable. 

The skill element is knowing which games to play and when, by watching previous scores, how they spin, how much has been fed into it...that's the skill element...which applies to ALL games.

Yup, can hear a few over-inflated egos exploding from here who actually are convinced its their skills... its nothing to do with how you play the machine...its all about when and which one you play...in other words..pure luck of timing...Nothing more.

In the words of one high roller, who is quite successful, when asked how do they do it...his reply was...."by simply, watching and gaining the knowledge when to play".

Makes you think doesn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I play the same designer
there is no luck factor in the game
it is the competence when talking about known games (no devil)
in this sript running X1 X2 X3 araigner is write with a percentage X1 must leave 20 percent
X2 should get 30 percent X3 ditto everything is predefined in advance
the only thing that chance is falling on the machine at the right time ^ ^

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I haven't interpreted anything broadly. I actually believe a few games pushed way too far past the line which for all we know is why there are problems now. The way games were handled in the past it ended up pushing out games that are more clearly skill based actually. If LL stuck to their original policies the skill game industry in SL would look very different today. People put out games that LL allowed and tested where the line was because it wasn't their original wager TOS.

You're right... they didn't and now they're cracking down.

 

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

Not sure why you think I am worried persay. The policies and such need to be written much clearer to clean up this mess and confusion. I can guess what they meant to say but people can't afford to guess. As written it can be interpeted as a video arcade style game where you simply pay to play is not allowed even if it is just for high score and for no prize of any kind.

On multiple occasions (during this thread), you've misinterpreted the policy.  The policy is completely clear, as where your interpretation is not... I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you.  You've even gone so far as to call into question the existence of a semi-colon in LL's policy as being the decisive factor of how it should be interpreted.  As such, how can anyone, besides completely ignorant morons take you at your word for what they've actually said.

I don't blame you one bit for being so disgruntled and/or so cynical, but you can do that and stick to the facts as well.  You don't need to make crap up in order to sell it.

...Dres

If by cracking down if you mean they are cleaning up the mess they were signficantly responsible for and profited off of your right. But it is pretty clear someone cracked down on Linden Labs.

I didn't misnterpreted anything. It was written by people that don't even know what the word gamble means. Additionally I never said that a semi colon is a decisive factor of how to interpet the policy. Either you are EXTREMELY confused or just trolling for fun. I said the exact opposite about semicolons how they are not words and they are not making things clear. The policy is NOT clear. It was written by someone that should not be doing writing such things. 62 pages of questions and comments clearly demonstrate that

If you have to make BS and crap your not helping anything. I am done talking to you. Clearly you have alterior motives other than the facts, policies or reality. So good luck with the trolling just to get your naked picture in the forums

The quote "Gambling is strictly prohibited in Second Life" was from a blog post that wasn't intended as a legal document so they used language that was based on the common, not legal, definition of gambling. As you can see here, the common definition of gambling refers to games of chance, which are still prohibited and have been since the initial change of policy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gambling

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did say I didn't understand coding but surely you can't say there is no luck factor in the game and yet say everything is predefined in advance (in other words, the operators skills or lack of it it irrelevant) and the chance is about falling on the machine at the right time?   Surely that's luck?  

Link to post
Share on other sites


Stormie Windlow wrote:

I did say I didn't understand coding but surely you can't say there is no luck factor in the game and yet say everything is predefined in advance (in other words, the operators skills or lack of it it irrelevant) and the chance is about falling on the machine at the right time?   Surely that's luck?  

If that's what was said, then it's definitely luck/chance, and nothing to do with skill. I don't know what the conversation is though :)

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I haven't interpreted anything broadly. I actually believe a few games pushed way too far past the line which for all we know is why there are problems now. The way games were handled in the past it ended up pushing out games that are more clearly skill based actually. If LL stuck to their original policies the skill game industry in SL would look very different today. People put out games that LL allowed and tested where the line was because it wasn't their original wager TOS.

Not sure why you think I am worried persay. The policies and such need to be written much clearer to clean up this mess and confusion. I can guess what they meant to say but people can't afford to guess.
As written it can be interpeted as a video arcade style game where you simply pay to play is not allowed
even if it is just for high score and for no prize of any kind.

On the Stock market it is within the scope as far as how LL in these recent posts does not understand the term "gamble". The old wager TOS was more clear even though it was not really enforced by LL. Heck based on how they handled games in the past it was all pure guess work.

Okay, let's see how the clause can be interpreted this way. The clause, as follows:

 

  • “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object: 1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance; 2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; 3) provides a payout in Linden Dollars; and 4) is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law. Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy. “Skill Games” are not intended to include and shall not include “gambling” as defined by applicable United States and international law.

Most people are using the words "a" and "and" to draw the conclusion that this is referring to a single thing that has four characteristics. However, you're maintaining that the use of semicolons means that they can be considered independent clauses and that a "skill game" is something with any of these characteristics, despite the writer not using either "are/and" or "is/or" in place of the red words, which would be the logical choice if that was the meaning intended.

However, to test your argument, I'm operating on the assumption that they're independent clauses. This means that:

1) “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object, whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance.

Okay, this makes sense. But it also means:

2) “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object, that requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play.

Why? What does paying money have to do with any definition of skill besides the knowledge of what pocket your wallet is in?

3) “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object that provides a payout in Linden Dollars.

Again, why is this skill? And finally --

4) “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object, that is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law.

The way laws usually work is anything that isn't specifically listed as being illegal is considered legal. Therefore, you will have the statement mean that all games that aren't specifically illegal - i.e. tic-tac-toe - must be on skill gaming regions, along with illegal games that meet the criteria of 1, 2 or 3 - they'd have to refer to illegal games because if they didn't they'd already be included in clause 4.

If there are two ways to read a clause, one of which makes sense and one of which doesn't, the law will accept the meaning that makes sense. If your canine pet bites someone and you claim that laws about dogs don't apply in this case because a dog is a part of a mechanical clutch assembly? Say goodbye to Fido.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's settle this for Sorina once and for all.

This page, which is an explanation about how the semi-colon is used, contains a description of exactly the way that LL uses it in the policy document. About half way down it says, "Use a semi-colon to connect sentences that contain internal punctuations.". And it offers the following example, "When dinosaurs agree on something, they often high five one another; dinosaurs are all about high fives."

That's the way that LL used the semi-colon. As someone (Kenbro, I think) explained earlier, because there were already commas in the sentence, they used semi-colons where commas would normally have gone. It's a correct use of it, and is in no way an indication of OR. So Sorina has been barking up the wrong tree with the semi-colon.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the really important question for Sorina and her customers is, if she doesn't receive the clarifications she feels she needs,  is she planning not to attempt to have any of her games approved, and  to withdraw from the games business completely?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1254 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...